Emerging Opportunities: Giving & Participation by Silicon Valley Asian Americans

8/2/2019 Emerging Opportunities: Giving & Participation by Silicon Valley Asian Americans

1/40

EMERGINGOPPORTUNITIESGiving and Participation by Silicon ValleyAsian American Communities

Building DemocraticPhilanthropy


2/40

AAPIP is deeply grateful to the 31 individuals who took time out of their busy schedules to participate in this study,

and generously shared their experiences with civic participation, giving and the Silicon Valley philanthropic

landscape. The incredibly rich insights and recommendations that emerged from our conversations with them find

expression not only in this report, but also in AAPIPs future programming in Silicon Valley and around the country.

Donors & Volunteers

Acknowledgements

Key Informants

Emmett Carson

Eleanor Clement Glass

Sarah Khan

Michele Lew

Kavita Ramdas

And one other who wished

to remain anonymous

Sono Aibe

Nahid Aliniazee

Farah Brelvi

Connie Chan Wang

Darryl Chiang

Bita Daryabari

Venky Ganesan

Buck Gee

Anil Godhwani

Yin Ling Leung

Linda Min

Radha Penekelapati

Ruth Protpakorn

Edwin Shao

Stephanie Shum

Shyam Toprani

Emily Wu

Mary Anne Viegelmann

Adam Yano

Sophia Yen

And four others who wishedto remain anonymous

This report would not have been possible without the generous support of the David & Lucile Packard Foundation and

Kathy Reich. We owe a great debt to AAPIP Silicon Valley Chapter Co-Chairs Marjorie Fujiki and Liane Wong, who

devoted considerable time to this project and provided guidance and support every step of the way. We also thank

AAPIP consultant Jai Lee Wong for planting the seeds for a research project focused on Silicon Valley AAPI giving.

Special thanks to LinkedIn and Connie Chan Wang for generously hosting the focus groups, and all members of the

AAPIP Silicon Valley Chapter.

Report Author: Sarita Ahuja

Project Manager: Noelle Ito

Core Advisors: Marjorie Fujiki & Liane Wong

Editing/Communications: Joe Lucero

Graphic Design: Ison Design,www.isondesign.com


3/40

Emerging Opportunities: Giving and Participation by Silicon Valley Asian American Communities |

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

5

AAPIP: Building Democratic Philanthropy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 6

AAPIs in Silicon Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 8

Study Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Study Approach and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 12

Perspectives on the Giving Landscape in Silicon Valley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 12

Motivations and Interests of Silicon Valley Donors and Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Encouraging Philanthropy in the Next Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 29

Conclusions and Recommendations: Inspiring More Giving in Silicon Valley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 35


4/40

2 |

Executive Summary

Introduction

More than any other region in the United States today,

Silicon Valley the birthplace of the technologyrevolution is a symbol of both the American dream

and global transformation. The2011 Index of Silicon

Valleyreports that 29% of the regions population of

three million people is Asian. Immigrants including

many from Asia have founded pioneering tech

companies like Google, Yahoo!, Sun Microsystems and

eBay that have generated immense wealth. As Asian

Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) make their

mark in successful companies and entrepreneurial

ventures, their contributions do not end there. Many

are giving back generously, in time and treasure, to

causes that are close to their hearts in their local

communities, in the countries of their or their parents

birth, and around the world. AAPIs in the region are

forging new approaches to philanthropy that reflect the

culture of innovation in Silicon Valley as well as their

own cultural, religious and familial values.

To capture and highlight learnings from the giving

practiced in this region known for diversity and

innovation, AAPIP (Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders inPhilanthropy) conducted an inquiry into the landscape

of Asian American volunteers and donors in Silicon

Valley in partnership and with the generous support of

the David & Lucile Packard Foundation. The study

aimed to better understand the giving experiences,

inspirations, interests and values of Asian Americans in

the region.

This report is an expression of AAPIPs framework

Building Democratic Philanthropy. It is a call to action toboth institutions and individuals to meaningfully

engage impacted communities, and to leverage

individual action for collective good. Building

Democratic Philanthropy encourages organized and

emerging philanthropies and individuals to support

practices that put communities first, drawing on their

assets as the starting place for any blueprint to

maximize their potential.

Study Participants & Approach

In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 AAPI

donors and volunteers, and two focus groups were

conducted with an additional ten young AAPI

professionals working in high tech companies in the

Valley. The study participants are primarily from

Chinese and Asian Indian backgrounds reflecting the

communities in which AAPIPs Silicon Valley

relationships are strongest. Beyond the Chinese and

Indian communities, AAPIP was able to engage severalparticipants from other Asian American backgrounds

including Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Thai and

Vietnamese. Moreover, we decided to include two

donors from Middle Eastern backgrounds in the study.

We also interviewed five key informants who are

nonprofit leaders with deep experience working with

Silicon Valley AAPI donors.


5/40

Emerging Opportunities: Giving and Participation by Silicon Valley Asian American Communities | 3

The Giving Landscape in Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley has a distinct culture of philanthropy.

Study participants described the overall landscape ofgiving in Silicon Valley:

Giving is less traditional and more hands-on. AAPI

donors interviewed for this study described giving as

hands-on and high-touch, in part due to the new

money that the high tech sector has generated and

that many have come into their wealth at a younger

age. This type of active engagement with organizations

was contrasted with what they referred to as more

traditional philanthropy that was described as writing

checks or gaining personal recognition.

The entrepreneurial culture drives a business

approach to philanthropy and social change. New

approaches to philanthropy have emerged in areas like

Silicon Valley and Seattle where high tech entrepreneurs

seek to apply their successful business practices to

addressing social issues and creating sustainable

organizations. Concepts like social entrepreneurship

and attention to measurable results reflect the business

approach to philanthropy in Silicon Valley.

Networking while giving back. Networking for either

career advancement or meeting potential investors was

noted by study participants as an element of the

culture of philanthropy in Silicon Valley. Workplace-

based giving and events were described by younger

professionals as being ways to make new professional

contacts in addition to supporting charitable causes.

Giving Influences and Interests

While family had been an initial inspiration for a

majority of the study participants, as adults their friendshave more of an impact on their giving with 80%

indicating they learn about causes and organizations to

support from their friends.

Immigrants had a stronger interest in international giving

but all but one of them also give to organizations in the

U.S. The American-born study participants tend to give

more to causes in the U.S. A number of younger, second

generation professionals do not give internationally and

expressed concerns about transparency.

Of the 25 study participants, over two-thirds (68%)

indicated that they give to organizations in the U.S. that

serve their own ethnic or religious communities.

Immigrants tended to support organizations serving

their own particular ethnic or religious communities.

Second generation donors in this study had a stronger

Asian American identity beyond their ethnic identities,

and support Asian American organizations that serve

multiple communities.

Education was by far the most popular issue area ofgiving among the study participants, with 15 out of 25 (o

60%) reporting giving to education, broadly defined.

Those who give to education-related causes expressed

a desire to create opportunities for others to pay

forward the opportunities that got them where they

are. Other areas of interest included empowering girls

and women, civil and human rights, health, disaster


6/40

4 |

relief, arts and culture, preservation of immigrant history,

religious institutions attended by family members, and

orphanages in South Asia and the Middle East.

Most of the donors interviewed for this study who have

children are actively encouraging them to be

philanthropic and to be engaged in the community. Many

spoke of how important it is that their kids understand

how privileged they are relative to most of the world.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Silicon Valleys culture of entrepreneurship, innovation

and opportunity has been a catalyst for immigrant andsecond generation Asian Americans to shape

philanthropy according to their cultural and professional

values. Most of the donors we interviewed did not come

from wealthy backgrounds and are new to philanthropy.

That much of the wealth in Silicon Valley Asian

communities is new money has implications for how

individuals enter into philanthropy and their giving

preferences. With less of a family history of American-

style philanthropic giving to guide them, new donors

may want to be more hands-on and involved in the

causes or organizations to which they give.

In interviews and focus groups, study participants

affirmed that there is great untapped potential to

engage more of their peers in Silicon Valley, who are

also new to philanthropy, as donors and volunteers.

Ideas and recommendations for inspiring more giving in

Silicon Valley AAPI communities include:

Encourage companies in Silicon Valley to give

more, incentivize and acknowledge employee

giving and volunteerism.

Organize social and networking events, especiallyfor younger professionals.

Create intergenerational events or projects that

can involve the whole family.

Raise awareness in Silicon Valley of the needs of

Asian American and Pacific Islander communities

in the U.S.

Promote inclusive dialogue on social

entrepreneurship and venture philanthropy, and

the impact of these trends on the nonprofitsector.

Use technology for social marketing and to

reduce the time factor in giving.

Conduct further research on giving by AAPI

subgroups and Middle Eastern communities.

Both immigrant and American-born donors and

volunteers in this study were very involved in their local

communities giving and volunteering to helpdisadvantaged people of all backgrounds. Among the

American-born, even those with strong bicultural

identities were more inclined to give in the U.S. and

locally, rather than internationally. This suggests that as

the American-born AAPI population grows in Silicon

Valley, so will their involvement and impact giving to

domestic and local causes.


7/40


Emerging Opportunities: Giving and Participationby Silicon Valley Asian American Communities

Introduction

More than any other region in the United States today, Silicon Valley the

birthplace of the technology and internet revolution is a symbol of both the

American dream and global transformation. As much as Silicon Valley is a success

story of high-risk and high-reward innovations, it is also a story of the immense

contributions immigrants make in both their adopted and home countries.

At the height of the civil rights movement President

Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965 (also

known as the Hart-Cellar Act), which put an end to

decades of race-based quotas and for the first time

opened the door to large-scale Asian immigration to

the United States. The 1965 law was a radical departure

from the racialized immigration system that had existed

until then,1 significantly increasing the total number of

immigrants allowed into the United States and enabling

immigration based on both the basis of needed skills

and family ties to U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

The transformation of the American immigration systemcoincided with the growth of new high-technology

industries in Silicon Valley. The demand for skilled labor

in emerging electronics industries exploded during the

1970s and 1980s, with foreign-born engineers flocking

to high tech centers like Silicon Valley in search of the

new gold rush. As AnnaLee Saxenian has noted in her

article Silicon Valleys New Immigrant Entrepreneurs,

between 1975 and 1990 Silicon Valleys technology

companies created more than 150,000 jobs and the

foreign-born population in the region more than

doubled to almost 350,000. By 1990, one third of all

scientists and engineers in Silicon Valleys technology

industries were foreign-born. Of those, almost two

thirds were Asian primarily of Chinese and Indian

descent. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of

1990 further promoted the immigration of engineers by

almost tripling the number of visas granted on the basis

of occupational skills.2

Among non-white groups in the United States, AsianAmericans have the highest rate of business ownership,

and their businesses account for half of all minority

business employment in the United States.3 In Santa

Clara County, immigrants are entrepreneurial and are

more likely to create their own jobs than native born

workers. They contribute about 44% of the regions

Gross Domestic Product.4 Immigrants including many


8/40

6 |

from Asia have founded pioneering tech companies like Google, Yahoo!,

Sun Microsystems, Nvidia, Paypal, eBay as well as many other companies

that have generated a growing, affluent class of entrepreneurs and

professionals.

As Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) make their mark in

successful companies and entrepreneurial ventures, their contributions donot end there. Many are giving back generously in time and with

significant financial and social capital to causes that are close to their

hearts in their local communities, in the countries of their or their parents

birth, and around the world. AAPIs in the region are forging new

approaches to philanthropy that reflect the culture of innovation in Silicon

Valley as well as their own cultural, familial and religious values.

To capture and highlight learnings from the giving practiced in this region

known for diversity and innovation, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in

Philanthropy (AAPIP) conducted an inquiry into the landscape of AAPI

volunteers and donors in Silicon Valley. AAPIP commissioned this study in

partnership and with the generous support of the David & Lucile Packard

Foundation. The purpose of the study was to better understand the giving

experiences, inspirations, interests and values of AAPIs in the region. It

provided a significant opportunity for AAPIP to learn from the Silicon

Valley regions unique blend of large and diverse AAPI populations,

entrepreneurial professionals, high-level donors and active volunteers

lessons we can apply as we expand the movement of building philanthropy

within the AAPI community.

AAPIP: Building Democratic Philanthropy

For years, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) have been

rendered largely invisible within philanthropy both within organized

philanthropy, and in recognition of AAPI communities distinct philanthropic

traditions. In 1992, AAPIP published Invisible and In Need, which found,

among other things, that investment in AAPI communities from 19841990

amounted to no more that 0.2% of all philanthropic giving by foundations.

Fieen years later, in 2007 AAPIP followed that seminal report with

Growing Opportunities: Will Funding Follow the Rise in Foundation Assets

and Growth of AAPI Populations?, revisiting the same core analysis, finding

that foundation funding to AAPI communities from 19902002 amounted

to no more that 0.4% of all foundation funding although the AAPI

population had doubled between 1990 and 2004. More recent data

suggests little improvement. Lack of investment in AAPI communities

remains an enduring challenge to philanthropy.

As Asian Americans

and Pacific Islanders

(AAPIs) make their

mark in successfulcompanies and

entrepreneurial

ventures, their

contributions do not

end there.


9/40


Since 1990, AAPIP a national, member-supported philanthropic

intermediary has met these challenges through a strategic combination

of philanthropic advocacy, robust development of community-based

philanthropy, and support for AAPIP members in the field, through a

framework called Building Democratic Philanthropy.

Building Democratic Philanthropy offers both a critique of, and anaspiration for, philanthropy. As a critique, it surfaces the ongoing need for

building greater democracy and increased transparency within organized

philanthropy; as well as a more vibrant collaboration between philanthropy

and the impacted communities that are the focus of foundation

investments. As an aspiration, Building Democratic Philanthropy is a call to

action an opportunity for both organized and emerging philanthropies

and individuals to support institutions and embrace practices that put

communities first, drawing on their assets as the starting place for any

blueprint to maximize their potential.

Building Democratic Philanthropy is a call to institutions and individuals to

meaningfully engage impacted communities, and to leverage individual

action for collective good.

This report is a powerful expression of Building Democratic Philanthropy,

eliciting better-informed strategies to develop the communitys enormous

philanthropic potential, by reaching out to the local community and

developing a deeper understanding of demographic and philanthropic data

about AAPIs in the Silicon Valley and surrounding regions.

The nature of capital in the Silicon Valley region from how it has been

developed, to how it is now shared continues to evolve. AAPIPs role and

responsibility in understanding the AAPI community in the Silicon Valley is

to provide a clearer lens on what drives and motivates philanthropic

behavior and activity in the region. Silicon Valley with its growing wealth,

access to capital, evolving technologies, and expanding AAPI populations

provides a unique and robust context for understanding emerging

opportunities to innovate and build more democratic philanthropy.

This report begins by providing some historical and demographic context

on AAPIs in Silicon Valley. It then describes the study participants and

touches upon the research methodology and limitations. Learnings fromthe research are organized into three sections: Perspectives on the giving

landscape in Silicon Valley; Motivations and interests of AAPI donors and

volunteers; and Encouraging philanthropy in the next generation. The

report concludes with a set of recommendations for encouraging more

AAPI giving and building democratic philanthropy in Silicon Valley.

AAPIs in the region are

forging new

approaches to

philanthropy that

reflect the culture of

innovation in Silicon

Valley as well as theirown cultural, familial

and religious values.


10/40

8 |

AAPIs in Silicon Valley Today

Silicon Valley is home to about one million Asian Americans and Pacific

Islanders. The Silicon Valley region has been defined as Santa Clara

County plus adjacent parts of San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Cruz

Counties. Using this definition (but including all of San Mateo County in its

demographic analysis), the 2011 Index of Silicon Valleyreports that 29% of

the regions population of three million people is Asian.5 Silicon Valleys

population is relatively young: 88% of residents are under the age of 65,

and 37% of the population is between the ages of 20 and 44.

AAPI populations are more concentrated in Santa Clara County, which is

home to some of the largest AAPI populations in the country. Santa Clara

Countys population is one-third AAPI, with over 570,000 people in the

County identifying themselves as Asian in the 2010 Census and over 7,000

identifying as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.6 Two thirds of Santa Clara

Countys Asian population is foreign-born. Santa Clara Countys Asianpopulation increased by 17,000 between 2008 and 2009 the largest

increase in the Asian population nationwide.7 Subgroup data from the

Census Bureau shows that in Santa Clara County, the largest AAPI

populations are Chinese (8.6%), Vietnamese (7.1%), Asian Indian (6.6%) and

Filipino (4.9%). San Mateo Countys population is about 25% Asian and 1.4%

Pacific Islander, and these groups together include over 188,000 people.

The largest AAPI populations by far in San Mateo County are Filipino (9.8%)

and Chinese (9%), followed by Asian Indians (1.9%) and Native Hawaiians

and other Pacific Islanders (1.4%).8

Three cities within Silicon Valley are now majority Asian, and the city ofCupertino has the highest percentage of Asians in the region (63%). The

neighboring cities of Milpitas and Fremont are 62.2% and 50.6% Asian,

respectively, with the largest subgroups being Asian Indians and Chinese.

About 110,000 people in Fremont and Milpitas are AAPI. Other Silicon

Valley cities that are more than one-third Asian include Sunnyvale, Santa

Clara and San Jose.

Asian 748,642

Chinese 217,497

Filipino 157,603

Asian Indian 131,082

Vietnamese 129,187

Other Asian 45,977

Japanese 33,854

Korean 33,442

Native Hawaiian andOther Pacific Islander 17,377

Other Pacific Islander 10,311

Samoan 4,029

Guamanian or Chamorro 1,548

Native Hawaiian 1,489

Table I. Asian American and Pacific

Islander Populations in Santa Clara andSan Mateo Counties

Source: U.C. Census Bureau, 2011.


11/40


12/40

10 |

county population. San Jose has the largest number of Vietnamese of any

American city.11 While some Vietnamese have prospered, a recent study on

the health status of Vietnamese Americans commissioned by the Santa

Clara County Public Health Department found that roughly one in ten

Vietnamese families lived in poverty between 2007 to 2009, higher than

the county average and higher than all other major racial/ethnic groups

except Latinos. This study also found that some lower-income Vietnamese

families may be at risk for food insecurity, as 16% of Vietnamese adults

reported that they or other adults in their family had obtained food from a

church, food pantry, or food bank in 2011.12

Another Santa Clara County Public Health Department report found that

Filipino and Vietnamese subgroups have limited access to healthcare

services, higher prevalence of health risk factors, and are least likely to

report their general health and/or mental health as good compared to

other subgroups and County residents in general. Vietnamese residents in

Santa Clara County suffer from higher rates of cancer, tuberculosis andheart disease than most other racial and ethnic groups. More than one-

fourth of Vietnamese adults (26%) in Santa Clara County lacked health care

coverage, a higher proportion than for adults in the County as a whole in

2011.13 Sixteen percent of Filipino adults are uninsured.14

Pacific Islander groups like Tongans and Samoans face some of the biggest

challenges of any racial and ethnic group in the South Bay region.

According to the 2010 census, there are 57,183 Tongans in the United States,

and about 13,000 of them live in San Mateo County. A smaller

concentration of about 2,000 (mostly Tongan) Pacific Islanders can be

found in East Palo Alto. Tongan community leaders and organizers reporthigh rates of domestic violence, tobacco and alcohol use, high school

dropout rates, gang activity, obesity, lack of access to health care and

suicide. Tongan youth have a high drop out and teenage pregnancy rates

and are overrepresented in juvenile hall and adult correctional facilities.15 A

2010 presentation by officials in San Mateo Countys Pacific Islander

Initiative Program reported that 19% of young Pacific Islanders in the

county have tried to commit suicide, 11% carry a weapon for protection, 56%

have shoplied in the past 12 months, and 45% have skipped school in the

last month. Tongans in San Mateo County have much higher rates of

obesity (46%) and lack of prenatal care (33%) than Latinos, AfricanAmericans, whites and Asians.16

The disparities in key indicators among different AAPI groups demonstrate

the importance of examining disaggregated data in order to gain a more

nuanced understanding of AAPI communities in the region.

While 58% of Asians in

Santa Clara County

have a bachelors

degree or higher, 11%(roughly 60,000

Asians) have less than

a high school diploma.


13/40


Study Participants

In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 Asian American donors and

volunteers, and two focus groups were conducted with an additional ten

young Asian American professionals working in high tech companies in the

Valley.

Table III. Demographics of AAPIPs 25 Study Participants

Ethnicity Female Male Immigrant American-Born

Asian Indian 4 3 5 2

Chinese,

Taiwanese or Hong Kong 6 4 1 9

Filipino 1 1

Japanese 1 1 1 1

Korean 1 1

Middle Eastern 2 2

Thai 1 1

Vietnamese 1 1

TOTALS 17 8 11 14

The age range of the 25 donors and volunteers who participated was

20s60s. They work in a broad range of professions including high tech,

internet and social media, nonprofits, medicine, law and education.

The study participants are primarily from Chinese and Asian Indian

backgrounds reflecting the communities in which AAPIPs Silicon Valley

relationships are strongest.17 Beyond the Chinese and Indian communities,

AAPIP was able to engage several participants from other Asian American

backgrounds including Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Thai and Vietnamese.

Moreever, we decided to include two donors from Middle Eastern

backgrounds in the study. Since 9/11, AAPIPs work has evolved to include

programming supporting emerging organizations in Arab, Middle Eastern,

Muslim and South Asian communities that are generally not on the radar of

organized philanthropy. Given that Silicon Valley is home to largeconcentrations of Middle Eastern American communities, AAPIP decided

to include two donors of Middle Eastern backgrounds in this study in order

to capture their insights and inform our work with these communities.

We also interviewed five key informants who have deep experience

working with Silicon Valley Asian American donors in varying capacities,

including leaders of nonprofits that serve Silicon Valley Asian communities.


14/40

12 |

A review of articles, publications and web sites related to AAPI

demographics, donors and the culture of philanthropy in Silicon Valley

was also undertaken to provide context and additional learnings in the

report.

While this study took a broad pan-Asian approach, we recognize that

each ethnic community has multiple stories and experiences to shareabout their giving. Our research was informed by other ethnic-specific

studies conducted on Asian American giving in particular, a new study

of Silicon Valleys Asian Indian community commissioned in 2011 by the

Silicon Valley Community Foundation18 and a 2001 study on the diaspora

philanthropy of Indians in Silicon Valley conducted by Shahnaz Taplin &

Associates.19 AAPIP hopes that the learnings from our study will inspire

others to conduct deeper research into the giving of different ethnic

and religious communities in Silicon Valley and in other parts of the

United States.

Perspectives on the Giving Landscape inSilicon Valley

Silicon Valley has a distinct culture of philanthropy. Before delving into

the experiences of individual donors and volunteers, this section

provides context on the overall landscape of giving in Silicon Valley.

Giving is less traditional and more hands-on. Donors interviewed for

this study described giving as hands-on and high-touch, in part due to

the new money that the high tech sector has generated and becausemany have come into their wealth at a younger age. Almost all of those

participating in this study were involved as volunteers with organizations

they give to. This type of deeper engagement with organizations was

contrasted with what they referred to as more traditional philanthropy.

As one donor explained,

Its not like the old wealth way of giving where if you had money

you just write a check. Its more a sense of you do something and

you connect with the work.

Many of the study participants have given substantial time and expertiseto nonprofits as founders of new organizations, board members and

fundraisers. For example, five study participants had been involved in the

founding of organizations that serve or advocate for their own ethnic or

religious communities.20 As one nonprofit founder noted,

Since I founded the India Community Center, I have spent more

time in the nonprofit world than in the for-profit world in the last

nine years.

Study Approachand Methodology

In keeping with old and new

forms of generosity practiced by

Asian Americans, philanthropy

and giving are defined broadly

in this study to include not only

tax-deductible gis to

organizations, but also informal

giving, volunteering, mentoring

and investments in for-profit

social enterprises.

In order to engage in deeper

conversation with study

participants about their giving,

AAPIP chose to conduct a small

scale, qualitative study rather

than a large-scale, randomized

survey. As this was our first

inquiry into Silicon Valley Asian

American giving, to maximize

the learning opportunity AAPIP

chose not to limit the study to a

particular ethnic community.

AAPIP reached out through our

networks and invited study

participants from a range of

ethnic and religious

communities, and with income

levels ranging from middle class

to net worth of over a billion. In

the course of interviews, donors

also referred us to their friends

and colleagues. Because the

majority of study participants

did not want quotes attributed

to them, we present all quotes

continued next page


15/40


Being directly involved in organizations also helps donors see how their

money is being spent, helping to maintain the kind of trust that keeps

them engaged in giving.

The more involved and connected we are to an organization or a

cause, the more we give.

Nonprofits benefit from bringing to the table the skills and perspectives

of those who have succeeded in the for-profit sector. For example, one

donor described how his business and risk-taking approach as a board

member made a big impact on his organizations fundraising:

My contribution is my optimistic nature of setting goals and

helping to get there. With nonprofits you work on best efforts

and you dont push yourself. You oen think of whats achievable

by knowing [what was achieved in] the past. I was more willing to

say what the hell and lets do it. This comes from my business

background.

The giving circle SV2 (Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund) is another

example of hands-on philanthropy, in which donor Partners have the

opportunity to work directly with nonprofits supported by SV2 to help

build their capacity. Currently 100 families are involved in SV2 with a

minimum $5,000 annual donation. A few Asian American donors we

interviewed are involved in SV2. One study participant described the

appeal of SV2s hands-on approach:

The SV2 model is very high engagement. Its another reason we

joined. Its the way that you giveits not just check writing theres much more where you can get engaged in different ways

you can contribute your skills, be an advisor, end up on boards.

Professionals in Silicon Valley also donate their skills, time and money

through corporate philanthropy programs such as the Yahoo Employee

Foundation and LinkedIn for Good. These newer forms of corporate

philanthropy are employee-managed, and focus on leveraging the

talents of employees to impact the nonprofit sector. Many believe that

human capital is the future of philanthropy. Professionals particularly

Millenials are looking for more ways they can make an impact through

the workplace, where many spend the vast majority of their time.

Most of my involvement with the community has been through

my workplace I think were very fortunate to have good, stable

jobs, and just realizing the importance of giving back to the

community is the way that Id hope I have impacted the

community around me over the past few years.

anonymously. A partial list of

donors, volunteers and key

informants who gave AAPIP

permission to be named as

study participants is provided in

the Acknowledgements section

of this report.

Given the non-random approach

to participant selection and the

small size of the sample, thisstudy should in no way be

construed as scientific, and

AAPIP does not claim that the

learnings from the study are

generalizable to Asian

Americans in Silicon Valley as a

whole. The views of study

participants are their own, and

while we identify commonalities

among study participants

responses, these themes should

not be taken as definitive of

Asian Americans views on

giving. Because the sample was

developed through AAPIPs

existing networks, the study

learnings are likely skewed in a

number of ways for example

the high level of volunteerism,

level of knowledge of the

nonprofit sector and interests in

particular issue areas.

Study Approach and Methodologycontinued


16/40

14 |

Busy young professionals in our study highlighted the importance of online

and workplace-based giving and volunteering given their longer working

hours. Many also take advantage of matching gi programs at their or their

partners companies.

The entrepreneurial culture drives a business approach to philanthropy

and social change. New approaches to philanthropy have emerged in areaslike Silicon Valley and Seattle where high tech entrepreneurs seek to apply

their successful business practices to addressing social issues and creating

sustainable organizations. Those participating in this study spoke oen of

social entrepreneurship and venture philanthropy as characterizing Silicon

Valley giving. One donor who runs a venture capital firm described his

venture philanthropy approach:

I get involved in philanthropy the same way I get involved in a

company. The difference is just gains vs. good and generating

impact not generating revenue. If a new program is starting, I want

to know how you do it. What is your plan on getting there? If I

believe in the plan, I am happy to get involved.

In media interviews, prominent Silicon Valley venture philanthropists like

Vinod Khosla (founder of Sun Microsystems) and Pierre Omidyar (founder

of eBay) have posited that businesses, like microlenders, may be in a better

position to help people in poverty than charitable organizations.21 Even

businesses that do not have social benefit missions are seen by Silicon

Valley entrepreneurs as having a positive social impact through job creation.

A donor we interviewed described her husbands approach to giving in

those terms:

He sees his form of philanthropy more through his company. If he

delivers something through which he creates meaningful jobs for

people in India, he creates a good that will transform and that is his

contribution.

Social entrepreneurship is a concept that is particularly appealing in Silicon

Valley, where the high tech revolution originated. Social entrepreneurs

implement new ideas for solving social problems that have the potential to

make large-scale impacts. Because of the emphasis on new solutions and

social change, social enterprises are oen start-ups rather than connectedto existing nonprofit organizations. Social entrepreneurs and those who

seed them look for return on investment and measurable outcomes, which

can be defined in different ways. In some social enterprises, the return on

investment is not defined in financial terms but rather as social impact,

whereas others are set up to generate revenue or profit while also creating

benefits for society. Depending on the mission and business model, a social

enterprise may or may not be a nonprofit.

Many believe that

human capital is the

future of philanthropy.


17/40


Many of the study participants were very aware of venture philanthropy

and social entrepreneurship as major trends in the region, using the

language and concepts to describe the philanthropic culture:

In Silicon Valley I think its about scale and thinking on a national

and international scale. Its about thinking about big impact and

how things can be measured and improved. It has to be different.Those in Silicon Valley are skeptical of things being done the same

way. We always assume things should change.

In Silicon Valley, its scrappy, startup-y I feel like people are always

talking about social entrepreneurship. Theyre always looking for

organizations that are just starting out, have a novel idea, the next

big thing thatll change the world... for-profits too. And more metrics.

While many observed that Silicon Valley donors are very focused on

metrics, when asked how they determine whether their contributions are

well used, it was striking that only two of the fieen donors we interviewedspoke about looking for metrics or measureable results. These two donors

were strongly aligned with the business approach and focused on metrics

because they wanted to be sure that the nonprofits they support were

actually helping people or making change.

There are organizations that need to be supported and that are

good, but just because a cause exists doesnt mean it should be

funded. There needs to be a clear sense, not just well intentions.

Having been a recipient of charity I know it can be done poorly.

I read this article about all the charities and the money that is givenand how the money is hurting them more than helping them.

Giving is good but people have to be more intelligent about it. The

solution that you come up with may not be helpful.

When asked how they determine if their contributions to organizations

have been well-used, a few other donors said they receive grant reports or

verbal report-backs from staff. But the majority of those interviewed said

that they trust the organizations they support and do not engage in much

follow-up evaluative activity. This was the case even among those who were

aware of social entrepreneurship and metrics as strong trends in the region,

suggesting that other factors may be more important to Asian American

donors than measurable outcomes. Donors in our sample who were less

scrutinizing of nonprofits tended to have a lot of direct experience working

with nonprofit organizations, for example as past or current staffmembers

of nonprofits, or as board members or founders. These donors said they

trust the nonprofits they support because they trust people either the

people running the organizations or the people they know who support the

organizations.

In Silicon Valley I think

its about scale andthinking on a national

and international scale

Its about thinking

about big impact and

how things can be

measured and

improved. It has to be

different. Those in

Silicon Valley are

skeptical of things

being done the same

way. We always assum

things should change.


18/40

16 |

I trust that nonprofits are going to use my funds wisely. The most I

think about the contribution is when its made. Im not expecting a

service in return. I might be thinking about it again when I get the

reminder about my pledge. But I just trust when I give that its

going to be used for a good cause. Its implicit when somebody

makes the ask and that ask is compelling. Its funny because I work

in evaluation... but its really about trust.

In addition, some donors and key informants expressed a good deal of

skepticism and criticism of business approaches to social change. Nonprofits

working on deep rooted, longstanding social issues find that tangible

outcomes and metrics are not easy to define. Said one key informant:

The culture of philanthropy in Silicon Valley is driven by an

entrepreneurial culture and they put high emphasis on metrics and

measurement. It is also consistent with those that have a science or

engineer background where measurement and outcomes are

important. Therefore in philanthropy they will ask a lot of questions

about measurements, outcome and how do you know its working.

This is both a good thing and has its down side With some social

issues, success is not as easily measureable as how many houses

were built.

Another questioned the appropriateness of applying business principles to

cash-strapped nonprofits that are providing critical services to people:

In this economy, how to explain the return on investment? I

understand donors do expect that. But the terminology gets to me.

We are already running on a shoe string. Showing donors how to do

more with less this creates a cycle of getting by on less. Its the

opposite of what we need. We could do much better with more.

Another critique is that social entrepreneurship is increasing competition

for social capital by creating more and more new organizations.

I want people to understand that there are a lot of existing

organizations, oen started by social entrepreneurs years ago, out

there that do lots of good work. My concern with the current

emphasis on becoming a social entrepreneur is that every college

student now seems to be more interested in starting their own

nonprofit than in mobilizing support for existing causes or groups.

This is troubling because good nonprofits have done a lot to get to

where they are and are still struggling. We need to create an

environment in which we can ensure that such organizations access

sufficient resources, work effectively and collaboratively with others,

and continue to make space for new ones. That is an important set

of issues about which we should be both mindful and careful.

The culture of

philanthropy in Silicon

Valley is driven by an

entrepreneurial cultureand they put high

emphasis on metrics

and measurement. It is

also consistent with

those that have a

science or engineerbackground where

measurement and

outcomes are important.

This is both a good thing

and has its down sideWith some social issues,

success is not as easily

measureable as how

many houses were built.


19/40


Social entrepreneurship was also seen as a limited approach to social

change because of its lack of attention to the role of civic engagement and

policy advocacy in fully addressing the root causes of the inequalities social

entrepreneurs try to impact.

Social entrepreneurship focuses on making societies better, and

doing a bit of business cost recovery. Where does advocacy fit in?Im worried about that gap. Political participation is where the

rubber hits the road.

These debates around social entrepreneurship raise important issues for

both new and traditional philanthropists, and for the nonprofit sector as a

whole.

Networking and career advancement are part of the culture of giving.

Networking and mentoring were noted by study participants as elements

of the culture of philanthropy in Silicon Valley.

AnnaLee Saxenians seminal article on Silicon Valleys New Immigrant

Entrepreneurs provides an in-depth discussion of Chinese, Taiwanese and

South Asian professional associations that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s

in Silicon Valley to facilitate immigrant job search, information exchange,

access to capital and managerial knowhow, and the creation of shared

ethnic identities. These associations include The Chinese Institute of

Engineers, the Asian American Manufacturers Association, the Silicon

Valley Indian Professionals Association, and The IndUS Entrepreneurs.

Saxenians research shows that part of the impetus for creating ethnic-

based professional associations that encouraged entrepreneurship was

these immigrants isolation from mainstream networks and glass ceiling

issues experienced working in larger tech companies.22 Saxenian describes

how Silicon Valleys most successful Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs

relied heavily on such ethnic resources while simultaneously integrating

into the mainstream technology economy:

Many of these associations have become important forums for

cross-generational investment and mentoring as well. An older

generation of successful immigrant engineers and entrepreneurs in

both the Chinese and the Indian communities now plays an active

role in financing and mentoring younger generations of co-ethnicentrepreneurs. Individuals within these networks oen invest

individually or jointly in promising new ventures, acting as angel

investors who are more accessible to immigrants than the

mainstream venture capital community and who are also willing to

invest smaller amounts of money.23

As Shahnaz Taplin & Associates wrote in a 2001 study of Indian diaspora

philanthropy in Silicon Valley, Nowhere is the emerging philanthropic style

Social entrepreneurship

focuses on making

societies better, and

doing a bit of business

cost recovery. Where

does advocacy fit in? Im

worried about that gap

Political participation is

where the rubber hits

the road.


20/40

18 |

more evident than in efforts of The IndUS Entrepreneurs (TiE).24 TiE was

founded in Silicon Valley in 1992 by successful Indian entrepreneurs and

executives. TiE is a nonprofit and does not directly invest capital in

enterprises, but rather fosters entrepreneurship and wealth creation

through mentoring and networking. TiE now has over 10,000 members

worldwide, a global presence in 57 locations, and 2,500 charter members.

Charter members, who are successful entrepreneurs, corporate executives,

and senior professionals, may join by invitation only and actively participate

in mentoring aspiring entrepreneurs and junior members. TiE holds events,

conferences and retreats around the world where emerging entrepreneurs

have the opportunity to network with one another and with charter

members. While not focused on philanthropy, many TiE charter members

are also prominent philanthropists. Following the Gujarat earthquake in

2001, TiE chapters raised millions of dollars to aid earthquake victims25 and

prominent TiE members were involved in founding the American India

Foundation, the largest U.S. based philanthropy organization focused on

catalyzing social and economic change in India.

Asian Americans have faced a glass ceiling in Silicon Valley companies for

decades26 and are still underrepresented in senior leadership of large firms

in Silicon Valley, where they make up about 30% of tech professionals but

account for only 12.5% of managers in companies in which 80% of the

CEOs are Caucasian.27 This challenge motivates one donor we interviewed

to give substantial volunteer time to efforts to addressing the glass ceiling

in Silicon Valley corporations:

Im retired now. The other thing I spend my time on is helping to

solve a problem. The problem is that there are not enough Asians incorporate leadership roles. I noticed there were Asian Americans in

senior management, but they were not getting promoted. So Ive

been going to company executives and making them aware of this

through networking and having lunch. Because I think it is

something that can be solved with Asians inside of corporations. My

work around this manifests itself in many ways finding leaders,

getting press, generating programs that can teach Asian Americans.

Workplace-based giving and events were described by younger

professionals as being ways to make new professional contacts in addition

to supporting charitable causes. As one younger professional described,

Another motivation for giving back to the community was when I

started getting involved with Yahoo Employee Foundation, it

started offas a way just to meet people as well. Aer becoming

involved I switched [jobs] because of some of the connections I

had made.


21/40


In part because of the high value placed on networking, many study

participants felt that the best way to engage younger Asian American

professionals in Silicon Valley in giving was through the workplace.

Giving is more technology-oriented in Silicon Valley. A number of study

participants described the culture of giving in Silicon Valley as very

technology-focused, reflecting the interests and expertise of the dominantindustry.

Here theres obviously a big tech focus. You want to give back or

volunteer in a way that taps into your passion.

Many of the study participants also reported using technology to facilitate

giving to organizations. Websites mentioned by Silicon Valley donors include

Kiva, an innovative online lending platform that matches micro lenders to

social entrepreneurs around the globe; OneVietnam, an online network that

connects Vietnamese Americans to philanthropic projects and is dedicated

to raising awareness of social issues in Vietnam, including human trafficking,Agent Orange disabilities and natural disaster relief; DonorsChoose, which

allows donors to support classroom projects posted by public school

teachers throughout the United States; and Kickstarter, a funding platform

for creative projects. Study participants said that using technology for giving

and for marketing causes is important to reach younger professionals,

especially because they have little time outside of work.

Motivations and Interests of Silicon Valley Donors

and VolunteersThe subject of giving does not lend itself to generalization. Each study

participant shared with us unique giving stories, experiences, passions and

interests. As mentioned in the methodology section, this study does not

purport to have findings that are generalizable to all Asian Americans or

definitive of Asian American giving. The value of this type of study is in

giving voice to the experiences and diverse perspectives of community

members. As we present the learnings from our conversations and

interviews in this section, we strive to honor the donors unique giving

paths while identifying some commonalities and patterns among the study

participants.

Inspirations and Influences

Parents and other family members: Sixty percent of interviewees and

focus group participants cited family as influencing or inspiring them to get

involved in volunteering or giving either directly or indirectly.

My mom oen talks

about how when we

first came to the states

all these peoplehelped us The idea

of you pay it forward.

She would say people

helped us and our job

is when you are in the

position to help, youhelp others and thats

the only way you can

re-pay people back for

what they did for you.


22/40

20 |

My mom oen talks about how when we first came to the states all

these people helped us The idea of you pay it forward. She

would say people helped us and our job is when you are in the

position to help, you help others and thats the only way you can

re-pay people back for what they did for you. Its priceless and you

help the next set of people that come aer and that really stuck

with me.

[My father] taught me from early on in fourth grade. He told me for

every dollar I raised, he would match. I think they expected me to

raise less but I raised a couple hundred dollars and I dont think at

the time they had the means for them to really match it, but they

definitely raised a culture of philanthropy in me as well.

My involvement with Angel Island Immigration Station is personal.

My story is that my father was at Angel Island. We didnt learn it

until he died in 2002... My father came in under false papers. This is

what piqued my interest in Angel Island. The reason I am involved

is on the most personal level, we lost part of our history and it is

gone forever. Our goal is to make sure that this doesnt happen to

others so that we can capture stories by original sources while

people are still alive.

While a few mentioned their parents having family foundations in the U.S.

or abroad, most of their parents giving was described as informal and

non-traditional to individuals in need or to extended family members.

This learning is consistent with previous studies of Asian American

philanthropy that highlight informal, anonymous, religious, familial andcommunity-based forms of giving prevalent in Asian societies.28

Where I grew up families are tightly knit and are there for each

other and the extended family in other ways. It was close at home

and mostly family related. It was whatever the people in the

neighborhood needed.

In Vietnamese culture, we send money back to our family and

extended family. As we get older, we realize that we can do more.

We give money to our parents. We see that as part of our

philanthropy That part is not tax-deductible but its a significant

portion of our income. They are both retired now. We started

giving to them when they retired. They sacrificed so much for us,

its our turn to give to themWe have one foot in the old ways of

giving, but we also support mainstream nonprofits.

It is worth noting here that while a majority of study participants were

inspired by their families to give, several second generation participants


23/40


said that inspiration to give or volunteer did not come from their families

because their immigrant parents values were to put family first. For

example:

I grew up in the U.S. but my parents immigrated here. They werent

philanthropic. They were your typical Asian parents that focused

on working hard and education. I didnt really have that role model,but I think that is typical for children of immigrants.

My family wasnt very philanthropic in the traditional sense. They

cared mostly about taking care of our family. We rarely went

beyond our circle. Thats the way [my mother] grew up, it was all

about family first.

There are significant financial demands on first generation immigrants to

support family members in home countries while also providing for their

own families in the U.S. that may make it challenging to give to causes.

Religious or faith-based community influences: About one fourth (24%)

cited religious traditions or faith-based communities as giving them

inspiration or role models for giving back. Of the six respondents who

mentioned religion, half were from Muslim backgrounds and religious

custom was very prominent in their responses to the question of how they

got involved in giving. For example:

My family, my parents have always given zakat which is a religious

obligation. I grew up knowing about zakat and participated in it. My

first involvement in giving was with zakat which is the same lens

that my husband and I view our charitable giving today. Zakatinforms our sense of our religious obligations and the bulk of our

charitable giving.

I grew up in a family that was very religious on my fathers side.

When he became a doctor, he took one day a week to help patients

who didnt have any money. It was the same with my grandfather,

he was very religious. A beggar would come to the door, and it was

customary to invite him in to have lunch with us.

Philanthropy runs in my family. At a very young age, my father

started the first mosque [in the area] and gave heavily to that Iused to go to faith-based events at the local mosque, events that

my dad would help put on. He did philanthropic work with non-

Muslims as well. He tried to reach out to different faith-based

organizations and help them out.

Two of those who mentioned faith traditions as an influence referred to

faiths different from their own backgrounds:

My family, my parents

have always given

zakat which is a

religious obligation. I

grew up knowing about

zakat and participated

in it. My first

involvement in giving

was with zakat which is

the same lens that my

husband and I view our

charitable giving today

Zakat informs our sense

of our religious

obligations and the bul

of our charitable giving


24/40

22 |

I went to Catholic school. Im not religious but I was taught values

from school.

One of the biggest influences was the Jewish community. When

we saw how they gave, it inspired us to do more giving.

Exposure to poverty and dire need in home countries: About one fourth

(24%) also cited exposure to poverty in their home countries as a motivator

for their giving. All of those who described being directly exposed to dire

poverty in other countries were immigrants, and they were of varying ages

and national origins. They were exposed while growing up in those

countries and in the present when they visit home countries, or when

natural disasters strike.

We traveled to Bombay not infrequently and I know what kind of

suffering I saw firsthand. My family is from Bombay and I want to

help people there because I know but for the grace of God that

that could have easily been me living in poverty.

Growing up I learned I have to help people the elderly, kids who

dont have parents. I went to orphanages with my mom, donating

food and toys and clothes. All the things I saw growing up in Iran, I

thought one day Ill go back and help that region.

There have been natural disasters in Thailand. The Tsunami in 2007

and the flood thats going on now. My friend and I got people

together and raised money for the flood victims. A couple weeks

ago, we raised $7,000 Its the least we could do, the least I could

do, in that its really bad seeing the whole country under water.

Younger Asian American professionals born in the U.S. oen cited first

getting involved in volunteering through schools and through their

workplaces. Other reasons mentioned more than once for getting involved

in giving and volunteering included significant liquidity events and being

influenced by friends.

Giving Interests

Giving back to their own ethnic and faith-based communities in the U.S.

and internationally. Of the 25 study participants, over two-thirds (68%)indicated that they give to organizations in the U.S. that serve their own

ethnic or religious communities. Reasons for founding or supporting

U.S.-based ethnic or civil rights organizations included educating other

Americans about their community, culture or religion; creating bridges

between their communities and the mainstream; and protecting the rights

of their communities. For example:

Over two-thirds give

to organizations in the

U.S. that serve their

own ethnic or religious

communities.


25/40


We started the India Community Center because we felt there was

a need to bring the Indo community together and celebrate our

culture, and take care of seniors and to provide a community for

them. It was also to teach the second generation the culture. There

was also lots of interest in the local mainstream community and

misconceptions [about the Indian community], so we wanted to be

a portal and bridge to the community. All of our programming and

everything is open to everyone.

Since working with Muslim Advocates, I understand the value of

developing a robust Muslim philanthropic community it is

important to have civic institutions.

Immigrants tended to support organizations serving their own particular

ethnic or religious communities. Second generation donors in this study

had a stronger Asian American identity beyond their ethnic identities, and

support Asian American organizations that serve multiple communities.

Were Korean American. AACI [Asian Americans for Community

Involvement] doesnt serve a lot of Korean Americans but for me,

personally, because I see the communities where we live, I see the

need. So much of the community in the area are Asian Americans, I

want to give back to my own community. Because Im second

generation, my identity is more Asian American.

Its a generational distinction of people in the second generation

that are giving more along the lines I give, from personal interest

and a sense of Asian American community and some general sense

of civic duty. The thing that is different about the way I invest my

giving is because of my Asian American [background] I am not

giving to the opera but to Asian arts organizations.

Some donors and key informants in the Indian community felt that first

generation immigrants give more in India rather than to the Indian

American community, in part because their money can make a greater

impact there. This point was echoed in a recent Silicon Valley Community

Foundation report on Indian philanthropy, which notes that many Indian

donors in Silicon Valley give large amounts of their personal wealth to

causes in India29

and points to a tension in making decisions between givingin India and giving in the U.S.30 However, donors interviewed suggested

that the Indian community is becoming more interested in giving back in

the U.S., with one donor saying Indians are realizing that its really the

environment of America thats caused them to be successful. And now they

feel that they want to give back.31 Among the immigrant donors

participating in AAPIPs study who give internationally, all but one also give

to causes in the U.S. As one donor we interviewed explained:


26/40

24 |

The wealth in the Indian community is recent and by that I mean

before 1995 there was a relatively small number of those that had

money. In the last 15 years that has changed and now you see a lot

of angel investors, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists. It started

to sink in for people that aer we buy our cars and houses, what

are we going to do with this money? And many have gotten more

involved in giving by setting up donor advised funds and donating

certainly in India but also in mainstream causes here.

Asian American donors also support other American communities and

mainstream organizations. The multicultural identities of those who

participated in our study were evident in their giving interests, which were

generally not limited to their own communities here or abroad. Only one

donor in the study gives only to ethnic-based causes, and only one gives

solely to organizations in her homeland. The majority of donors we

interviewed who support organizations serving their own communities or

diaspora also support American schools and universities, mainstreamorganizations serving the poor, or organizations serving immigrants and

other American communities.

Though the immigrant donors in our sample tended to give more in other

countries than second generation donors, only one gives exclusively abroad,

and some immigrants did not give to causes in their home countries at all.

The study participant who spoke most passionately about cross-cultural

giving and supporting other immigrant communities in the U.S. was an

immigrant from Hong Kong who has given to Iranian American causes:

With other groups outside my own community its worth it youcan learn from them. It can lead to collaboration later onThe world

is too small to just concentrate on our own community. I saw many

similarities with my community and the Persian community.

The American-born study participants tend to give more to causes in the

U.S. A number of younger, second generation professionals do not give

internationally and expressed concerns about transparency. An exception

to this among young professionals in Silicon Valley is Kiva, a U.S. based

online lending platform that allows individuals to make micro loans to social

entrepreneurs in other countries. Kiva was highlighted as being popular

among young professionals in the Valley.

Education is a priority area for giving. Education was by far the most

popular issue area of giving among the study participants, with 15 out of 25

(or 60%) reporting giving to education, broadly defined. This includes

giving to alma maters, giving to childrens schools and giving to education

and literacy programs in the U.S. and in other countries.

It started to sink in for

people that aer we

buy our cars and

houses, what are wegoing to do with this

money? And many have

gotten more involved in

giving by setting up

donor advised funds

and donating certainly in India but

also in mainstream

causes here.


27/40


Those who give to education-related causes expressed a desire to create

opportunities for others to pay forward the opportunities that got them

where they are. One donor explained,

Because folks have either earned it or worked hard to get their

wealth, they tend to want to provide opportunity for others so that

they can have a chance too[My husband] gives to educationalissues in the state of Orissa. It is a very rural state and not where

privileged Indians come from. You get into one of the colleges

because you worked pretty hard. He gave to an uncle that was

working on sponsoring mass scholarships for rural kids and helping

them get into college. He identifies as one of those kids.

As another donor put it,

What inspires my wife and me is the recognition that we have had

opportunities in our lives. I grew up in India and came from middle

class background, and none of this would have happened if wedidnt live in America where this can happen. We also recognize that

some people paid it forward to get us to where we are. We want to

pay it forward so that future generations have opportunities.

In addition to support for alma maters and kids schools, examples of

education-related causes in the U.S. supported by Asian American donors

included scholarships for children of Asian immigrants, scholarships for

foster children, and tuition assistance so that lower income children could

attend their own childrens private schools. One donor whose children

attend private schools described giving to a local public school to ensure

that his employees children were getting a quality education.

Several donors in our study who support education efforts in their home

countries or in their diaspora find educational efforts very impactful and

see them as the key to social change.

Indian education is at the forefront. I believe in it and it gives folks

the opportunity to improve their lives. It gives people a viable

chance to change their lives. It gives them the li they need and

makes a dramatic impact.

This can change the trajectory of that kid and the familys life byhelping them to get educated and then for them to go from

making one-to-two dollars a day to making five times that, and get

out of poverty.

Empowering girls and women. Over one third (nine out of 25, or 36%) give

money or time to girls and womens causes. Among several immigrant

women donors, girls education and womens empowerment in South Asia

and the Middle East was a strong focus. Most of the women donors in our

(Supporting) groups

outside my own

community can lead

to collaboration lateron. The world is too

small to just

concentrate on our

own community.


28/40

26 |

study who were from South Asia and the Middle East had a strong interest

in efforts to overcome barriers to educating women and girls in those

regions. Describing girls and womens causes she supports in Pakistan and

India, one donor from that region shared her motivation:

There is a prevalent view in India and Pakistan that girls dont need

to be educated, they will just get married. It struck home with meto see young women become professionals and be able to provide

for their families.

Another said,

Mostly I am interested in economic empowerment for women in

the Middle East so that they can have more rights and gender

equality, and in my thinking empowering them economically is the

best and fastest way to get their other rights.

Other girls and womens issues of interest to the donors we interviewed

(especially second generation donors) were reproductive rights and

domestic violence.

Civil and human rights. Almost one-third (32%) of study participants give

to civil or human rights organizations. Most of those in our sample who

support civil and human rights organizations are Muslims or from the

Middle East, reflecting their communities civic engagement priorities of

addressing post 9/11 discriminatory policies, hate crimes, media bias,

ongoing Islamophobia and other negative stereotypes. For example:

The mission of Islamic Networks Group coincides with my mission

and vision how important it is to be able to dispel stereotypes

about Islam, to educate people The ignorance is growing based

on the media.

Muslim Advocates they do civil rights for Muslims and non-

Muslims as well dispelling stereotypes, changing policies,

protecting civil liberties.

When we opened Pars Equality Center, we had the idea that we

will be helping the Iranian American community who have been

discriminated against aer 9/11 and who need help when they

travel. We are educating the community about the laws and their

rights here and making sure they are not scared to come forward.

Aer one year we realized that we need to have social services to

help the community in other areas. There is a need to educate the

community to help them find resources.

Several of the donors interviewed also give to the ACLU of Northern

California and two support international human rights organizations.

Those who give to

education-related

causes expressed a

desire to createopportunities for others

to pay forward the

opportunities that got

them where they are.


29/40


Health: Twenty-eight percent of study participants mentioned giving to

health-related causes, including research for cures for diseases like

Alzheimers and cancer, community-based clinics in the Bay Area and LA,

local domestic violence agencies, and health care initiatives in South Asia

like the Sankara Eye Foundation.

Other causes and organizations that at least a few donors in our studysupport include the arts and culture organizations, disaster relief, religious

institutions attended by family members, and orphanages in South Asia and

the Middle East.

How Asian American Donors Learn and Give

Personal connections play a strong role in learning and giving. While

family history was cited by a number of donors as an initial inspiration for

giving, the vast majority of donors say that their families do not currently

influence their decisions about what to support financially. Friends are a

much stronger influence, with 9 out 15 donors (60%) responding to this

question stating that friends have strongly influenced their giving. As one

donor said:

We have informal discussions oen with friends that are active in

giving. Since we go to lots of fundraising events we discuss there.

In addition, 80% of the donors (12 out of 15) interviewed said they learn

about causes and organizations to support from their friends or colleagues.

Its always through personal contacts. A friend or colleague will

invite me to a fundraiser or event. There is always some sort ofpersonal invitation Other ways that organizations solicit by

phone, email, or people coming to my door I normally dont

respond to those types of solicitations. Its too intrusive, a violation

of my privacy.

Other ways that donors described learning about causes was through

giving circles, workplace giving, philanthropic advising from the Silicon

Valley Community Foundation, and internet research.

Donor Advised Funds. One-third of the 15 donors interviewed have

established a donor advised fund that facilitates their giving. Donors whouse this mechanism found benefit in the advice provided by philanthropic

advisors, having the time to make giving decisions, and the opportunity to

grow their charitable funds.

When I set up my donor advised fund in 2005 at the Silicon Valley

Community Foundation, it was helpful in getting me to think

through things, and they suggested I say what I want rather than to

do scattered giving. My focus is Asian education.

80% of the donors

interviewed said they

learn about causes andorganizations to

support from their

friends or colleagues.


30/40

28 |

When we sold the last company there was a big tax implication and

we didnt know what to do with itIf we were really radical we

wouldve just given it away right away and not have a go-between,

but we wanted to build it up so that we could have impact later.

Private foundations. Of the donors in our sample, four (27%) give through

their own private or family foundations. One donor has established her ownprivate foundation. Three others are involved to varying degrees in their

parents family foundations, either in the U.S. or in their home country.

Giving circles and pooled funds: In addition, 11 of the 25 study participants

(44%) were involved in a collective giving mechanism with other donors

that pools or raises financial or social capital for certain issues or

geographies. Examples include the American India Foundation, the Global

Fund for Women, the Muslim Womens Giving Circle, OneVietnam, PARSA

Community Foundation, RajeevCircle, the South Asian Giving Circle, SV2,

WANDA (a giving circle at the Womens Foundation of California) and the

Yahoo Employee Foundation. One donor described the added value she

gets from a giving circle: Its a learning process, you learn alongside peers

and other donors. You learn about the issues in a much deeper way.

Some donors strongly value their independence: It is worth mentioning

that some of the Silicon Valley donors we interviewed felt very strongly

about their independence in making giving decisions or were skeptical of

intermediaries that facilitate giving. One donor described her style of giving

as guerrilla giving not being tied down to organizations. Another explained:

The reason I dont use any of these mechanisms is because I am

skeptical of any overhead fees. I work in financial services as a

venture capitalist and know about fees so I try to avoid them to see

more dollars going directly to a cause. I feel that if we leave money

for foundations we have failed.

The entrepreneurial culture of Silicon Valley may foster an individualistic

approach to giving. Said one key informant, The culture is driven by

people who believe in the rightness of their visionthis makes collaboration

very difficult.


31/40


Encouraging Philanthropy in the Next Generation

Most of the donors interviewed for this study who have children are

actively encouraging them to be philanthropic and to be engaged in the

community. Many spoke of how important it is that their kids understand

how privileged they are relative to most of the world.

The parents I know we are all thinking about teaching our kids.

How do we prevent our kids from being totally spoiled? How do we

teach lessons to them?

When you have more opportunities than other people it is an

obligation to give something back and it is very important for me to

teach my son to be compassionate. To have gratitude for what he

has and give back to the community.

Parents described many ways that their children ar

Emerging Opportunities: Giving & Participation by Silicon Valley Asian Americans

Documents

Transcript of Emerging Opportunities: Giving & Participation by Silicon Valley Asian Americans